2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Dame is the better or at least equal offensive player in that duo. Giannis should be rolling with that and allocating more energy to defense.

The Bucks depth is decent. Portis/Connaughton/Crowder and one of Beasley/Beverley is an acceptable playoff bench.

[70sFan]

Another time I see the Bucks doing well in the playoffs without Giannis. There are people around saying that Gianni's has been playing with underwhelming supporting cast and I have never seen that, not even close.

It's possible they'll lose this series without Giannis (he will come back, right?), but they are competitive against solid (though mediocre) playoff team.

[Texas Chuck]

FWIW Dirk might well have been the MVP in 2011 if he didn't miss those games and his team fall apart without him. Dallas with Dirk that year was playing at over a 60 win pace and it was all built around Dirk. To suggest he wasn't seen as a top 5 player that season prior to the playoffs requires completely ignoring the regular season.

I get how some people in their minds had written Dirk off because the team success had dried up, but his numbers continued to be what they always were (in both RS and playoffs). I promise you the league still knew this was an all-NBA level player during this stretch.

I mean try and find 5 better regular seasons than Dirk in 2011. You realistically can't.

[AEnigma]

FWIW Dirk might well have been the MVP in 2011 if he didn't miss those games and his team fall apart without him. Dallas with Dirk that year was playing at over a 60 win pace and it was all built around Dirk. To suggest he wasn't seen as a top 5 player that season prior to the playoffs requires completely ignoring the regular season.

I get how some people in their minds had written Dirk off because the team success had dried up, but his numbers continued to be what they always were (in both RS and playoffs). I promise you the league still new this was an all-NBA level player during this stretch.

I mean try and find 5 better regular seasons than Dirk in 2011. You realistically can't.

Yeah but did you consider that Durant led the league in scoring?

[Texas Chuck]

FWIW Dirk might well have been the MVP in 2011 if he didn't miss those games and his team fall apart without him. Dallas with Dirk that year was playing at over a 60 win pace and it was all built around Dirk. To suggest he wasn't seen as a top 5 player that season prior to the playoffs requires completely ignoring the regular season.

I get how some people in their minds had written Dirk off because the team success had dried up, but his numbers continued to be what they always were (in both RS and playoffs). I promise you the league still new this was an all-NBA level player during this stretch.

I mean try and find 5 better regular seasons than Dirk in 2011. You realistically can't.

Yeah but did you consider that Durant led the league in scoring?

I did notice Kobe also on his list. I mean cmon what are we doing? He's complaining that players are only seen as top 5 because they won, yet he has Kobe on his list and the only defense of that is winning the title the previous two years. Credit to him for not including the actual MVP, Rose, but we've examined that year pretty closely on this board and outside of the Kobe guys, its generally been accepted Lebron, Dwight, and Dirk were the best players. And that includes the RS. Dirk was really really good and his team was really really good.

I suggest anyone who doubts this to go look at the 11 Mavs a lot closer and really examine the 9 games Dirk missed and the 2 first games back when he came back still clearly hurt trying to stem the tide. That team couldn't score at all without Dirk. Those offensive performances without him are just..... That's not to say he didn't have a great team around him. He absolutely did and all those players played their roles beautifully. But Dirk made it all go. All of it.

[RCM88x]

Another time I see the Bucks doing well in the playoffs without Giannis. There are people around saying that Gianni's has been playing with underwhelming supporting cast and I have never seen that, not even close.

It's possible they'll lose this series without Giannis (he will come back, right?), but they are competitive against solid (though mediocre) playoff team.

His supporting casts have usually been pretty solid, don't get me wrong. Middleton, Lopez, Jrue/Lillard is a very solid 2-4. It's the guys beyond that which have been pretty inconsistent I think. Beasley found a great role on this team, and Portis had some good years in the past, Connaughton too. This year I don't think their bench is good at all, they've all dropped off a lot I think. Perhaps they've just been hit harder by the coaching carousel, Middleton absence, and Dame integration more than the top guys.

They obviously should be a tier 1 title contender, no question. Giannis' health just has made things complicated. And last year sort of proved that Miami was at least a low level contender despite not having the RS record, so I don't think losing to him even if they had a healthy Giannis' would be some massive indictment of their team either.

[itsxtray]

Tmac used to do that, go off big whenever Yao got injured. But you have to make it work with your costar and create synergy if you ever want to go anywhere in the playoffs.

Bigs & Smalls should have natural chemistry because they can run p&r & Dho's with each other. Embiid was great with Harden & Maxey and Jokic/Murray are the best duo in the league. Giannis & Dame should be better together.

Understandable perspective but I’d object to the term “should”. What we’re talking about are specific skills that other guys with similar bodies have, and we’re seeing is that the assumption the skills come with the body just isn’t true.

Maybe the Bucks duo can learn to synergize going forward, but it will be a thing they have to gain skill on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your perspective as well, but I still think should is apt. Giannis scores 1.23 ppp on his rolls, so it's not like it's ineffective. However, he only has 1.6 such possessions per game, or a 7.2% frequency. He also has a 1.15 ppp as the P&R ball handler, which is in the 97.4th percentile, with a 12.1% frequency. (3.3 possessions per game) When Giannis is involved in a P&R, he's great, so it's not a matter of ability but rather willingness or the Bucks' offense.

Maybe it's a moot point. The Bucks starters are one of the best lineups in the league with a 15.1 Net Rating in 600 minutes, and swapping out Middleton for Crowder, they have a 15.6 NetRtg in 293 minutes.

[The-Power]

I certainly see the reasoning behind the disagreement as far as examples are concerned. At the same time, I do think there is some validity to the broader point because I do believe that there's a good chance Tatum will be widely considered a top 5 player for and after this season if the Celtics win and he has clearly been their best and/or most prominent player during the run (big IF, of course).

[Doctor MJ]

I think we're understating Lillard's role in their relative "bumpiness" as a duo. I've always been kind of unsure how his game would scale on a real contender next to a better player than him (basically a requirement for him to be on a contender). He's got a very heliocentric game too, he's always been much more Harden than Curry to me in approach.

That being said, statistically both guys have been super impactful this year, they were +10 in 1,755 minutes on court together (+17 when you add Middleton) that is pretty fantastic. I think it's been a little overblown how they've struggled, expectations honestly were kind of unrealistic.

Portis, Connaughton, Crowder, Payne is pretty horrific depth.

So I agree that Dame is more Harden than Curry, but the thing is, if what we're talking about is offense, there's absolutely no reason to look at Milwaukee as more of a "real contender" than Portland had been during Dame's run there. The difference is defense, where Dame obviously deserves to be knocked, but it's not out of heliocentric concerns.

This then to say, there's really no reason in my mind to put more blame on Dame than on Giannis for why the duo together didn't synergize into a cheat code the way people seemed to assume they were. Yes, it would work better if Dame were Curry...and it would also work better if Giannis were Embiid (let alone Jokic).

The offense together isn't fundamentally bad of course, but realistically, the whole bet here was that "great players figure it out". And sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't.

My all-time favorite example of this was when Melo got traded to New York and Cowherd was playing the "great players figure it out" card. He basically assumed that all star players have tremendous BBIQ because some of them do, and projected it onto two of the lowest BBIQ stars in recent history despite ample red flags standing out and warning otherwise.

Still though, the offense really isn't the concern for the Bucks. The concern is that this was a team that was a contender all these years primarily because of their defense, and that evaporated this year in the regular season. They'll need to find a way to get it back if they want to contend.

[Doctor MJ]

Bigs & Smalls should have natural chemistry because they can run p&r & Dho's with each other. Embiid was great with Harden & Maxey and Jokic/Murray are the best duo in the league. Giannis & Dame should be better together.

Understandable perspective but I’d object to the term “should”. What we’re talking about are specific skills that other guys with similar bodies have, and we’re seeing is that the assumption the skills come with the body just isn’t true.

Maybe the Bucks duo can learn to synergize going forward, but it will be a thing they have to gain skill on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand your perspective as well, but I still think should is apt. Giannis scores 1.23 ppp on his rolls, so it's not like it's ineffective. However, he only has 1.6 such possessions per game, or a 7.2% frequency. He also has a 1.15 ppp as the P&R ball handler, which is in the 97.4th percentile, with a 12.1% frequency. (3.3 possessions per game) When Giannis is involved in a P&R, he's great, so it's not a matter of ability but rather willingness or the Bucks' offense.

Maybe it's a moot point. The Bucks starters are one of the best lineups in the league with a 15.1 Net Rating in 600 minutes, and swapping out Middleton for Crowder, they have a 15.6 NetRtg in 293 minutes.

Good data to bring up.

I would say that willingness might be the key thing - just like Giannis wasn't willing to extend before they acquired Dame and Giannis wasn't willing to play for Nurse - but let's also note that being able to have positive indicators on limited play usage is different from necessarily being able to scale to spam levels.

Re: maybe it's all moot, numbers look good. Perhaps, but we're also talking about a team known for underperforming in the playoffs in previous year, so if the Bucks "flip the switch" in the playoffs and look like those nice numbers, it would be a shift from what came before.

[Doctor MJ]

Another time I see the Bucks doing well in the playoffs without Giannis. There are people around saying that Gianni's has been playing with underwhelming supporting cast and I have never seen that, not even close.

It's possible they'll lose this series without Giannis (he will come back, right?), but they are competitive against solid (though mediocre) playoff team.

His supporting casts have usually been pretty solid, don't get me wrong. Middleton, Lopez, Jrue/Lillard is a very solid 2-4. It's the guys beyond that which have been pretty inconsistent I think. Beasley found a great role on this team, and Portis had some good years in the past, Connaughton too. This year I don't think their bench is good at all, they've all dropped off a lot I think. Perhaps they've just been hit harder by the coaching carousel, Middleton absence, and Dame integration more than the top guys.

They obviously should be a tier 1 title contender, no question. Giannis' health just has made things complicated. And last year sort of proved that Miami was at least a low level contender despite not having the RS record, so I don't think losing to him even if they had a healthy Giannis' would be some massive indictment of their team either.

Oh, I don't think you'll find a lot of top tier all-time great players who have had two massive seeding upsets to the same team in the playoffs, and let alone to an opponent that doesn't have a star who is supposed to be a serious rival.

It's certainly possible to blow the upsets out of proportion, but Giannis very much looked like he was going to be the best player of his generation, and for a player of that stature, this these have been eyebrow raising.

[Texas Chuck]

I certainly see the reasoning behind the disagreement as far as examples are concerned. At the same time, I do think there is some validity to the broader point because I do believe that there's a good chance Tatum will be widely considered a top 5 player for and after this season if the Celtics win and he has clearly been their best and/or most prominent player during the run (big IF, of course).

No doubt this happens. I don't know that for everyone its a simple as player X's team won so I elevate him, but also the playoffs puts a stamp that what one saw in the regular season translated. This has been a knock on certain players throughout the years, right?

Not sure any of it should apply to Tatum who has a long enough track record and close to 100 playoff games under his belt. Nobody should be really looking to the playoffs to see if his regular season play is legit.

And of course here we do awards based on RS + playoffs so it makes sense that guys with deep runs will gain from this compared to guys who don't make the playoffs or bow out early. I don't think its just hur dur winning by any means.

And of course yeah one of his examples missed the mark and I'm a Dirk homer so.....

[Texas Chuck]

I think we hold playoffs losses against players very selectively. One doesn't like how Giannis plays so naturally any losses we must examine closely and question everything we thought about how good he is. We love how Nash/KG play so we find explanations for any lack of playoff success. I think we have to be very careful we aren't looking for reasons to knock players based on style while finding excuses for those whose play style we love.

Right like I could create a narrative why doesn't KG have any upsets on his resume? You won't find any other top tier superstars with no upsets. While technically true, its a selective framing I'd feel guilty for using. He got to Boston and ended any questions if he could perform in the playoffs. Giannis has already answered any questions about can he perform in the playoffs. Last year is the only year he was ever a negative in the playoffs and well he was hurt. And the 4 years immediately before that his play is great.

[AEnigma]

I can think of a couple of upsets Garnett has on his résumé, but I suppose you could reframe it to be about primes.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I respectfully disagree regarding Dirk and Wade. In fact, I think their RS brilliance and impact gets overshadowed due to the story-points around their playoff runs (both passes of the seasons in both cases were amazing, don’t get me wrong).

On:Off and JE’s RAPM set (take that approach how you will, am aware more context is needed to assess a players’ performance) paint both seasons as extremely good floor raising campaigns.

Tatum hasn't been a top 5 player, simply put because his PS performances have not been top 5 worthy. Compare those prior to Tatum.

Dirk (08-10)

Adjusted to 2020 numbers: 28.4 pts per 75 (rTS% of 9.5%)

Wade (04-05)

28.6 pts (rTS% of 4%) in 2005 (2nd year in the league an still very much blossoming)

Kawhi (15-17)

27.4 pts per 75 (rTS% of 8.10%)


Tatum (21-23)

25.3 pts per 75 (rTS% -.1)

All those guys had scoring and general offensive punch that Tatum has not proven. This is where Tatum lacks the most compared to other guys considered in the top 5 I would say, which has a downstream effect of arguably making him a worse playmaker, due to less scoring gravity.

I think that misses that, with the exception of Kawhi (whose stature at the time was brought down in significant part by injury issues), Tatum’s defense is considered better. Prior to the 2011 run, Dirk’s defense was considered a massive negative that rendered him largely a playoff paper tiger. Meanwhile, young Wade wasn’t considered a bad defender by any means, but Tatum is definitely the highest-rated of the three in that regard. In any event, you say that those guys had “offensive punch that Tatum has not proven,” but the thing is that if the Celtics win the title this year, then most people would consider that to be Tatum proving that very thing (assuming he’s their best offensive player in the title run). A title win has a huge effect on peoples’ perceptions!

Overall, I just am virtually certain that a guy who has finished 4th and 6th in MVP voting (and likely will be around 5th this year) and is working on a potential third-straight all-NBA first team selection will be considered a top 5 player in the league if his team wins the title after a 10+ SRS regular season. It’s not like the 1989/1990 Pistons, 2004, Pistons, or 2014 Spurs where there’s just no one on the team that’s even close.

Yeah, my point is Tatum shouldn't be considered a top 5 guy even with the analytics tools we do have. The only angle he could get there is by weighing his durability. Otherwise, Wade, Kawhi, and Dirk are just outright better players than him especially offensively.

[Texas Chuck]

I can think of a couple of upsets Garnett has on his résumé, but I suppose you could reframe it to be about primes.

Don't overthink it. Its not an argument I'm trying to make. I'm just pointing out how easy it is to invent a narrative that we "should find really concerning" when we actually have enough info to realize its not really a big deal at all. The 2nd half of KG's career more than answers any questions one should have as to can you win with him in the playoffs. Giannis has already established you can win with him in the playoffs. I mean his Finals in the championship year is one of the all-time great offensive series and this for a guy that only me and a couple other posters even accept he's a great offensive player even without a great jumpshot.

Any of these arbitrary "requirements" I'm afraid lead us down some incorrect paths. Especially when only selectively applied.

[Texas Chuck]

Oh man its clear up Dirk narratives day I guess. Dirk's defense wasn't a massive negative prior to 2011. And calling him a playoff paper tiger? What are we doing today lol?

[lessthanjake]

FWIW Dirk might well have been the MVP in 2011 if he didn't miss those games and his team fall apart without him. Dallas with Dirk that year was playing at over a 60 win pace and it was all built around Dirk. To suggest he wasn't seen as a top 5 player that season prior to the playoffs requires completely ignoring the regular season.

I get how some people in their minds had written Dirk off because the team success had dried up, but his numbers continued to be what they always were (in both RS and playoffs). I promise you the league still knew this was an all-NBA level player during this stretch.

I mean try and find 5 better regular seasons than Dirk in 2011. You realistically can't.

I was an avid basketball fan in 2011 (as I suspect were you), and, based on my recollection, I just don’t think Dirk was considered top 5 at that point. Definitely top 10 (so I agree he was absolutely still seen as an all-NBA player!), but not quite top 5. Or at least, if he was considered top 5 then it was right at the bottom of the top 5. And that’s exactly how I’d describe Tatum at the moment—more like a top 10 player than a top 5 player, but maybe could squeak in at the bottom of the top 5. Like, before the 2011 playoffs, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, and Durant were all definitely considered better than Dirk. Then there’s Dwight Howard, who I think was on about even footing with Dirk. And that’s not even mentioning the guy who actually won MVP that year (no one thought Rose was actually the NBA’s best player, but he certainly had a good shout for top 5). More generally, Dirk hadn’t been top 5 in MVP voting since 2007 and had only been all-NBA first team once in that timeframe. I think my description of Dirk’s consensus standing at the time is accurate. Obviously we can look back and decide that we think that that perception was wrong—indeed, that’s exactly what I’m saying people end up doing after someone wins a title! But I think with Tatum we have a similar situation: A player who is definitely top 10, but is hard to get into the top 5. If anything, with Tatum we have better recent MVP and all-NBA voting (4th and 6th the last couple years, and very likely to be around 5th or 6th this year too, along with all-NBA first team the last two years). The biggest knock on Tatum is that he’s not reliable in the playoffs and therefore is seen as a bit of a playoffs choker, but let’s remember that until the 2011 playoffs that was basically the criticism of Dirk as well! Those criticisms will largely disappear if the Celtic win the title.

Anyways, regardless of that particular comparison, my point is that if the Celtics win the title, I don’t think they will be seen as the same type of superstar-less title team that the 1989 & 1990 Pistons, 2004 Pistons, and 2014 Spurs were. They have a guy who is a major superstar and a title would retrospectively cement that status for him.

Oh man its clear up Dirk narratives day I guess. Dirk's defense wasn't a massive negative prior to 2011. And calling him a playoff paper tiger? What are we doing today lol?

I’m talking about perceptions at the time. Those were absolutely the perceptions at the time. The general narrative at the time was that Dirk and the Mavs were not good enough defensively for the playoffs and perpetually choked in the playoffs (or at least typically lost when they faced another really good team). This was of course a perception borne out of the Mavs having a lot of playoff disappointments after great regular seasons. Obviously, winning the 2011 title changed that perception. I’m not making any value judgment whatsoever on whether that perception was actually right (indeed, a lot of those playoff disappointments was really just that the West was loaded with great teams in that era)—what I’m saying is that winning the title did in fact change the general perception of Dirk, and I think the same would be true for Tatum.

[tsherkin]

Yeah, my point is Tatum shouldn't be considered a top 5 guy even with the analytics tools we do have. The only angle he could get there is by weighing his durability. Otherwise, Wade, Kawhi, and Dirk are just outright better players than him especially offensively.

Yeah, he's kind of bleh in comparison to other lead guys. It definitely feels like his rep is at least a little outsized due to the quality of his team more than his individual play, particularly come the playoffs. He isn't bad, he's a pretty good offensive player, he just isn't top-tier by any stretch of the imagination. Another contemporary player who leans a little too hard into the 3 and has, as a result, significant variance issues. He's also kind of all over the place with his mid-range game and how much he's able to get to the rim and such, which makes him a little hard to nail down as far as which version you're going to get.

He has a lot to prove in the playoffs. He's not an elite offensive player in either the regular or postseason, "merely" a pretty good one. And that has to impact how people assess his utility to at least some degree. There is also some truth to the idea that he matches off his lower offensive ceiling with his defensive value, and they are an elite defense after all. Nevertheless...

[CKRT]

Now that all the Game 1's are complete, I haven't seen anything yet that would make Nuggets/Celtics less inevitable. Feels like they are head and shoulders better than everyone else in their conference.

Minnesota is the only question mark for Denver IMO